“Even the air we breathe is not free”
How prophetic and refreshing his words were 37 yrs ago.I could not recalled any
world leader said anything about pollution at that time.Have you?
Reply to #20-young01
Tell me,in what context did President Obama said about LKY by calling him a
Legendary?.Come on guys,give that Old Man credit when credit is due.

In a similar vein, Robert Neville of I am Legend. The book, not the silly movie with Will Smith.

Do note that Hitler and Mao Zedong were also “legendary”. It is a neutral adjective. Stop manipulating it to suit your own beliefs.

Nothing irritates me than those three words nowadays. Those three words have become a substitute for debate. It already assumes that there’s a problem, hence a need to do something about it. Many of us still aren’t convince there’s a problem to begin with.

And those three words also eschews any responsibility for those who said it to come up with practical solutions – practical as in solutions that will not damage our economy, increase unemployment, increase taxation, and increase energy cost.

And in case such impact can be compartmentalized, well, think again. It’ll probably also mean higher hospital bills, more expensive telephone bills, etc.

Finally, those who said those words usually aren’t the ones who had to pay the bill at the end of the day.

What if what the government has offered is the most they dared to go, beyond which Singapore must endure higher unemployment, higher energy cost and lower economic growth? It might be acceptable by some ‘to do more’, but not to me.

“Singapore is doing its part to tackle climate change through its environmental friendly policies and actions. However, due to Singapore’s limited land area and geographical constraints, large-scale adoption of alternative energy technologies such as hydropower, geothermal energy or wind energy is unlikely. The forms of renewable energy that will be more applicable to Singapore besides waste-to-energy would thus include solar energy and biofuels. However these sources of renewable energy are not yet cost-competitive with conventional fossil fuels. Hence, we are reliant on imported fossil fuels, such as natural gas, to meet our energy needs at present.

The main contribution to Singapore’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is carbon dioxide (CO2) from the use of energy to meet development and human needs. We have already switched much of our power supply to natural gas, which is relatively less carbon-intensive. Hence our key strategy in addressing climate change is to improve our energy efficiency. While our economy is expected to expand in the future and our population is expected to grow, improving our energy efficiency would allow us to meet the growing energy demand with less energy resources.

Achieving greater energy efficiency would require the efforts of all stakeholders, including households and the private sector. NEA is actively working to raise public awareness of the benefits of energy efficiency, such as educating consumers on the benefits of energy-efficient appliances and co-funding energy audits for companies and buildings.

There is also a consensus amongst the scientific community that climate change is a real and serious threat that we cannot ignore. As a low-lying island state, Singapore will need forward-looking policies to prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change. As a result of our environmental and developmental planning in the past, there are existing measures in place that can help to address certain potential climate change impacts in the short to medium term. NEA has also commissioned a two-year study to assess the possible longer term effects and impacts of climate change on Singapore, which is expected to be completed in end-2009.”

What Climategate? I’ve asked for people to point out the “utter b*llsh*t”. Lots of crazy ang mohs spewing paranoia, and only one person could point me to his methodology, but TOC deleted my detailed response.

So I’ll just say this:

People with specialized knowledge are misusing it to spin lies to the public. And they know people like me with the same knowledge will see through their manipulation immediately. But hey, as long as they can capture the attention of the majority who don’t understand how they are lying, they win.

There is nothing I detest more than people like these, and they are *not* the CRU scientists.

Newspapers ? You mean you actually READ the toilet paper that meant for your backside ? U are Uniquely Singaporean indeed ! Little surprise that thy mind is full of S H I T. You read S H I T, you quote S H I T.

I do read the newspapers but I don’t accept government propaganda at face value. It is the 133rd media in the world, remember? Just because it has been packaged as “climate change” in its presentation, it doesn’t necessarily make it actually part of the climate change agenda. You ought to more discerning of aggressive greenwashing efforts in this country and globally.

I am surprised nobody has yet commented on the scientific scandal of Climategate, which essentially undercuts the purpose of Copenhagen in the first place.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/addressing-climategate/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html